Useful legalese.

The Internal Revenue Code provides for one to revoke his (apparent) general election to be treated as a resident of the United States—defined by Congress in Title 26 U.S.C. to mean the District of Columbia[1]—and can be accomplished in as little as one sentence.

I’m not sure what the legal purchase may be of the various arguments on that page, but what I do know is that the federal jurisdiction is assuming that 99.7 of Americans are District of Columbia residents when in fact they are nonresident aliens relative to the federal jurisdiction. This is especially important with the income tax because the federal jurisdiction has plenary powers of taxation within its territorial jurisdiction but not outside it. That is why United States needs all Americans to be District of Columbia residents. And if you lazily point out that you are not, hooker lawyers will dream up words of art like “tax protestor,” “sovereign citizen,” and “terriss.” Those legal statuses will permit completely useless United States employees to do sneak and peeks and install surveillance equipment in your home that you may then use to transmit your show with your feet up on the desk while eating pistachio nuts. It’s a genius jurisdiction that wants money. That’s the federal government in a nutshell.

“Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion — to go where and when one pleases — only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

“The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22?1; 
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; 
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163

That’s a good page with stuff about the drivers license. I think the notion of “implied contract” is the key here. There is no contractual connection between me and the vehicle code or drivers license whatsoever, either express or implied.

I have a natural right to travel and the state is to respect it. Get off my property. I’ve only been listening to this genius nation prattle on endlessly for fifteen years about how free everyone is. I’m just making the curtains match the carpets around here for once.

Like I said, the next person to pull me over for anything other than a moving violation gets a lawsuit.

I am America’s Senior Comedian. Thank you for your kind attention in this matter.